Press Council finds The Australian breached standards over report on six-year-old

The Australian Press Council has found The Australian breached its standards in a report concerning allegations involving a six-year-old Indigenous boy in state care.

The ruling relates to a 17 June 2025 article, “Alleged abuse by young boy sparks tensions in regional town”, about allegations involving two children at a daycare centre in regional Western Australia.

The complaint

The complaint was made by the boy’s foster carers, who said it was unfair to describe the six-year-old as an “alleged perpetrator”.

They also argued references to his Indigenous identity, status as a ward of the state and the “intergenerational trauma of child sexual abuse” were not relevant to the allegations and could allow him to be identified within the small community.

The carers said the reporting caused significant distress to the family.

The Australian responds

The Australian told the Council it had taken steps to protect the identities of the children and carers, including withholding names, photographs and addresses.

It said “Indigenous ward of the state” was a generic descriptor and the reference to intergenerational sexual abuse was a broad observation about regional communities, rather than an assertion about the boy or why he was in care.

The publication said the journalist had conducted extensive inquiries and argued the article concerned matters of substantial public interest, including how child protection authorities handled serious allegations.

Press Council findings

The Council found it was unfair to refer to the boy as an “alleged perpetrator”, noting he was significantly below the age of criminal responsibility.

It also found there was no clear link between the allegations and the boy’s Indigenous identity or status as a ward of the state.

“Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading and presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principles 1 and 3 and Privacy Principle 6.”

The Council also found that while the boy was not named or pictured, the combination of details in the article could allow people within the community to identify him.

It found The Australian breached privacy standards and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice.

The Council said the case highlighted the need for publications to “exercise great care and respect” when reporting on children in articles concerning criminal matters.